Archive for category Why You Should Care

Sex Offenders, Supporters Lobby Georgia Lawmakers for Reform

free-press-release.com: Sex Offenders and their Supporters Lobby Georgia Lawmakers for Reform.

March 8, 2010 — Last weekend, sex offenders in Georgia took a step towards replacing the failed policy of registration and residency restrictions with a policy based on reason and with the goal of making their communities safer, actually protecting children, and restoring the nation’s international image for fairness and basic respect of human rights.

On Saturday, March 6, 2010, Georgians for Reform held a twelve hour conference in the Georgia State Capital. In attendance were more than 180 friends and supporters. Speakers included a District Attorney who participated in writing the original legislation creating the sex offender registry in Georgia, a Defense Attorney who addressed the ex post facto aspects of the registry, a lobbyist, a lawyer, and a sociologist who spoke about the wrong directions taken by the registry and its detrimental effects on both registrants and society as a whole. Several religious leaders also spoke about the challenges sex offender registrations pose to the faith community. Prison counselors and chaplains spoke on the reality of the registry for those incarcerated and released. Also in attendance was Paul Shannon, who helped establish Reform Sex Offender Laws (RSOL), a national advocacy organization for sex offenders and their families.

Every speaker, including the attorney who participated in the original legislation, told those gathered that the registry is a failed policy and serves as an extension of criminal punishment–a violation of Due Process protections guaranteed to every American citizen by the Fourteenth Amendment.

To gather close to 190 people in conference, the majority of whom are not on the registry, in the state of Georgia, leaves little room for anyone to claim it can’t be done. Who now can claim that society has written off persons convicted of a sex offense, that these people have no support, that these people do not deserve the basic human dignity spoken of so eloquently in our own Declaration of Independence? Who can continue to support the hyperbole, ignoring the statistical facts presented by the United States Department of Justice, or the reality of systemic failure on the part of registry schemes from state to state?

The guiding principle of the Georgians for Reform conference was that no speaker would be asked to address their topic from the organization’s stated perspective. Each speaker was asked to address the conference from his own perspective about the registry and was not vetted in advance about that perspective as a contingency for invitation. Speakers were invited because they satisfied one of the criteria of conference presenters: professional status in law enforcement, the clergy, the legal field, the study of sociology, psychology, or in the practice of therapy.

That each of the speakers in attendance came to the same conclusion about the registry as a failed policy speaks very loudly.

Georgians For Reform is deeply disturbed by the failure of sex offender registries to prevent incidents of human suffering at the hands of people such as Phillip Garrido and Anthony Sowell (both cases of sexual predation and abuse by registered sex offenders). We mourn the loss of Chelsea King, and we believe that the failed registration policies are partially responsible for her loss and the terrible pain felt by her family and friends.

Georgians For Reform demands that these failed policies be eliminated and replaced with policies based on the best available and empirical evidence. Such action–and the development of reasonable policies–will make our nation’s communities safer, protect children, and protect the right of people to heal and move forward. More importantly, law enforcement agencies will be able to focus on the truly dangerous offenders in their local communities.

Georgians For Reform will continue to speak out against these failed policies and demand a reform that works towards making our communities safer, protecting our children, and respecting the dignity of human beings. We will no longer accept ‘feel good’ policies that protect no one, lend a false sense of security, and help foster an environment that makes our children and communities less safe.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

State of Ohio vs Nixon - Contract Clause Challenge

NIXON v. STATE ; Bradley Nixon, Petitioner-Appellee,v. State of Ohio
2010-Ohio-767 - Appeal No. C-090219.
Court of Appeals of Ohio, First District, Hamilton County.
Date of Judgment Entry on Appeal: March 5, 2010.

Ohio Justice & Policy Center, Margie Slagle, and David A. Singleton, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Prosecuting Attorney, and Paula E. Adams, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent-Appellant.

Download Decision (PDF)

DINKELACKER, Judge.

{¶1} On July 27, 2001, petitioner-appellee Bradley Nixon pleaded guilty in a plea bargain to one count of gross sexual imposition in violation of R.C. 2907.05(A)(1). The court accepted Nixon’s plea, found him guilty of gross sexual imposition, and imposed five years’ community control. The sentencing entry stated that Nixon was “found to be a sexually oriented offender.” Under former R.C. Chapter 2950, Nixon was required to annually register as a sexual offender for ten years.

{¶2} In 2007, the General Assembly enacted Am.Sub.S.B. No. 10 (”Senate Bill 10″) to implement the federal Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Senate Bill 10 amended various sections of R.C. Chapter 2950. Nixon was notified that he had been reclassified under Senate Bill 10 as a Tier I sex offender and that he was required to annually register with the local sheriff for 15 years.

{¶3} Nixon filed an R.C. 2950.031(E) petition to contest his reclassification, challenging the constitutionality of Senate Bill 10. After a hearing, the trial court granted Nixon’s R.C. 2950.031(E) petition. The court found that reclassifying Nixon as a Tier I sex offender under Senate Bill 10 constituted a breach of his plea agreement and an impairment of an obligation of contract, in violation of Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and Clause I, Section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution, because his plea agreement was a contract with the state of Ohio that he would be obligated to register as a sex offender for only ten years.

{¶4} The state’s sole assignment of error alleges that the trial court erred in granting Nixon’s R.C. 2950.031(E) petition on the basis that his plea agreement constituted a contract that he would have to register as a sex offender for only ten years.

{¶5} Section 28, Article II of the Ohio Constitution and Clause I, Section 10, Article I of the United States Constitution provide that no laws shall be passed that impair the obligation of contracts. “[A]ny change in the law which impairs the rights of either party, or amounts to a denial or obstruction of the rights accruing by contract, is repugnant to the Constitution.”[ 1 ] Because plea agreements are contracts between the state and criminal defendants, principles of contract law are applicable to their interpretation and enforcement.[ 2 ]

{¶6} We held in Burbrink v. State[ 3 ] that the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements to a sex offender who had pleaded guilty to a sexually-oriented offense pursuant to a plea bargain under former R.C. Chapter 2950 did not violate the Contract Clause of the Ohio and United States Constitutions, because when the offender entered his plea he had no reasonable expectation that his sex offense would never be made the subject of future legislation and no vested right concerning his registration duties. Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements are remedial, collateral consequences of the underlying criminal sex offense, and they do not affect a plea agreement previously entered between the state and the offender.[ 4 ]

(Once again, ignorant and uninformed judges refuse to find these restrictions and requirements as being the punishment that they clearly are.)

{¶7} We pointed out in Burbrink that, under former R.C. Chapter 2950, an offender who pleaded guilty to a sexually-oriented offense was by operation of law a sexually-oriented offender who had to register annually for ten years. By not requesting a higher sexual-offender classification, the state had fulfilled its part of the plea agreement.[ 5 ] Once the offender had pleaded guilty and had been sentenced, both he and the state had fulfilled their respective parts of the plea agreement, and no action taken after that time could have breached the plea agreement.[ 6 ]

{¶8} In White v. State,[ 7 ] we held, relying on Burbrink, that the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements did not constitute a breach of White’s plea agreement or an impairment of his right to contract where the April 19, 1999, entry withdrawing White’s not-guilty plea and entering his plea of guilty to sexual battery stated that he would be classified as a sexually-oriented offender rather that a sexual predator.

{¶9} We hold in this case that pursuant to Burbrink and White the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements did not violate the Contract Clause of the Ohio and United States Constitutions because it did not impair Nixon’s rights under any contract with the state of Ohio that, under his plea agreement, he would be obligated to register as a sex offender for only ten years. The application of Senate Bill 10’s registration requirements did not constitute a breach of Nixon’s plea agreement or an impairment of his right to contract. Therefore, the trial court erred in granting Nixon’s R.C. 2950.031(E) petition. The assignment of error is sustained.

{¶10} The judgment of the trial court is reversed, and this cause is remanded for the trial court to enter an order reflecting that Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements are applicable to Nixon as a Tier I sex offender.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.
Cunningham, P.J., concurs.
MALLORY, JUDGE, concurring in judgment only:

{¶11} I agree that the judgment of the trial court must be reversed in this case, but not for the reasons expressed by the majority. I would reverse the trial court’s judgment on the basis that the record does not contain sufficient evidence that Nixon’s ten-year registration requirement was a term of his plea agreement. The record simply does not support the trial court’s determination that there was an agreement between the state and Nixon as to his sexual-offender classification and registration requirements. Therefore, the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements does not impair any contract between Nixon and the state or violate his constitutional right to contract.

{¶12} There may be a case in which the record demonstrates that the terms of a plea agreement between the state and a sexual offender constituted a valid contract as to the offender’s classification and registration requirements. I do not foreclose the possibility that in such a case the retroactive application of Senate Bill 10’s tier-classification and registration requirements may be an unconstitutional impairment of contractual obligations and a violation of the offender’s right to contract.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Message from One of the Converted

From a reader of our blogs:

“There was a time when I did think the streets must be filled with sex predators hiding and waiting to pounce on their next victim. Then I decided to study the FACTS ! I was totally wrong.

It turns out that these lying, gutless, sycophant fops we elect have no respect for the constitution and allow illegal laws to be put on the books for money and public hype. [These are] senseless laws by the uninformed. Their inability to work out all the difficult problems of the laws they create will do to harm the accused and not give them a chance to a new start in life free of crime. They brand these people immediately . They can’t get a job, find a place to live or survive. They have a right to live. “

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There Will Be Another Julia Tuttle

miamiherald.com: `There will be another Julia Tuttle,’ sex offender says.



“No Trespassing” signs were posted Friday afternoon under the Julia Tuttle Causeway, warning vagrants and sex offenders against settling under the concrete overpass that had housed them for years.

Under a clear sky and in brisk air, with traffic booming overhead, work crews took sledgehammers to the wooden shacks, shingled huts and flimsy tents along the bank of Miami’s gleaming Intra-coastal Waterway.

Most of the homeless sex offenders who lived there have been moved out, and the few who remain are on a short waiting list for housing that falls within Miami-Dade County’s revised sex-offender law.

So it would seem the practice of dumping South Florida’s sex offenders where no one can see them — or even find them — is nearly over. But it’s not.

“It’s the end of the Julia Tuttle, but it’s not the end of this kind of place,” said Patrick, a registered sex offender who has lived under the rat-infested bridge for three years and did not give his last name. “There will be another Julia Tuttle, another place where people will put us so that we are out of sight and out of mind.”

At one point, more than 100 convicted molesters and other sex offenders lived under the bridge. In the past decade, more than two dozen states and hundreds of cities have responded to the public outcry over sex crimes against children by passing residency restrictions. In many cases, the laws have effectively banned sex offenders and predators from living within huge swaths of cities and towns — separating them from their families and support systems — and settling them far from transportation and job opportunities.

By rendering them homeless, experts say, the laws make it more difficult for them to reenter society, harder for law enforcement to keep track of them and easier for them to fall into lawlessness.

In South Florida, the zones that were carved out over the past few years forced sex offenders to live at least 2,500 feet from almost anywhere children congregate: schools, libraries, bus stops, playgrounds and parks.

Not all sex offenders are hard-core predators or child rapists. Some of them are referred to as having committed `”Romeo and Juliet” crimes, which involve intimate relations — not always sex — among young couples, one of whom is under the age of 16. However, by law, all the offenders are lumped into the same category, and end up being labeled sex offenders for the rest of their lives, whether they raped a child or urinated in a public place where children play.

Ron Book, a powerful state lobbyist who helped push for the strict laws, is still a staunch supporter of sex-offender residency laws. But he now believes that, in some ways, they’ve been counterproductive. “Nobody should have ever said that this was an acceptable place to go,” Book said of the Tuttle enclave, which he visited Friday.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

CA: Bar Sex Offenders From Social Networking Sites

ktvu.com: Bar Sex Offenders From Social Networking Sites.

Oakland, Calif. — Calling social networking sites the “schoolyard of the digital age,” San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris Tuesday proposed a new state law banning convicted sex offenders in California from accessing Facebook, MySpace and other sites. Harris joined forces with Pomona Assemblywoman Norma Torres to announce the law that would make it a crime if any of the state’s 63,000 registered sex offenders were found to be using a social networking site.

The law is similar to ones already on the books in New York and Illinois. But enforcement may be an issue.
The proposed California law does not goes as far as New York’s which requires sex offenders to register their e-mail addresses and online aliases with state authorities.

Harris said she hoped the threat of a return to jail would be a strong enough deterrent to make California’s sex offenders to think twice about logging on. She also hoped that the social networking sites themselves would take some action.

The New York state law is credited with making MySpace and Facebook in particular end the access of 3,500 known sex offenders.

Harris said she did not see the new law as an infringement of the rights of an individual.

“We are talking about prohibiting people have been proven in a court of law of being a sex offender,” she said. “We are just saying let’s update our laws to reflect where we are in terms of a society. Most people communicate through this technology…These kids, in particular, use Facebook and MySpace as a way to create friendships and relationships and talk about themselves and share personal details.”

Harris’s logic is dumbfounding. If it is acceptable to take away access to Internet technology from anyone who has committed a sex-related crime, let’s do the same for anyone who has committed a crime against another human (any form of assault, murder, physical abuse, ect.). The facts are these:

1. Enforcing such laws is impossible. Anyone with half a brain can figure out how to create a false user name or secondary email address to register with any social network.

2. Social networking sites who claim to remove sex offenders are simply practicing public relations. Sure, they may find and remove a few of the really stupid ones who register their real names, but most people do not register on these sites with their real full name.

3. As we have written many times in these blogs, it is very rare for any sex offense to occur as a result of meeting a stranger on a social networking site. This is an urban myth. When rare contact is made between teens and strangers, it is sought out by the teenagers. The study “found that children and teenagers were unlikely to be propositioned by adults online. In the cases that do exist, the report said, teenagers are typically willing participants and are already at risk because of poor home environments, substance abuse or other problems”.

4. Research shows that the median age for facebook /myspace is 27/26 years of age respectively. In other words, social networking sites are not the Internet equivalent to children’s playgrounds, as the media would have us believe.

5. Hysteria about these social netoworking sites has long ago been proven to be overblown.
See our postings “Report Calls Online Threats to Children Overblown”, and “Sex Offender on Social Site = Felony”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sex Offender Registration Requirements Go Too Far?

24-7pressrelease.com: Do Florida Sex Offender Registration Requirements Go Too Far?

Recently, there has been some backlash against the reach of these laws as more members of the public and government become aware of how overbroad sex offender registration regulations have become. For example, State Attorney General Bill McCollum has expressed his concerns that some of the county ordinances restricting where convicted sex offenders may live have gone too far.

But for every person who raises a concern about the fairness and justness of current sex offender registration requirements, there are many more calling for the state to pass even harsher penalties. This is especially true at the local level in Florida, where counties and municipalities have been taking steps to expand the scope of their local sex offender ordinances.

Florida has some of the most restrictive sex offender registration and sentencing laws in the nation. Under state law, there are two separate designations for those convicted of crimes mandating sex offender registration: sexual predators and sexual offenders.

The state reserves the sexual predator designation for the most dangerous offenders who have been convicted of a capital, life or first degree felony sex crime or two or more second degree felony sex crimes. The court must issue a written finding designating a person as a sexual predator.

Those who have been convicted of an offense mandating registration as a sex offender in another state also must register with the Florida sex offender registry upon moving to Florida. In some cases, those who keep a permanent residence in another state but work or go to school in Florida also must register as a sex offender.

The information provided by the sex offender, including his or her picture, is made available to the public in an on-line database. Those who fail to register, provide incomplete or false information, or fail to meet any of the other legal requirements imposed upon them will be charged with a third degree felony and may be sentenced to additional jail time and other penalties.

Residency and Work Restrictions

State and local law imposes restrictions on where certain convicted sex offenders may live after serving their sentence. Florida state law prohibits those convicted of certain sex crimes against a child under 16 years of age from living within 1000 feet of a school, day care center, playground, park or other place frequented by children.

Some county and municipal ordinances impose even more restrictive residency requirements. For example, in Miami-Dade County, certain registered sex offenders are prohibited from living within 2500 feet of a school, day care center, park or playground. The county also recently added “child safety zones” to its ordinance, which prohibits sex offenders from loitering within the 300 feet extending from schools, day cares, parks and school bus stops.

The Miami-Dade ordinance has received national attention for effectively forcing sex offenders into homelessness with over 70 offenders living underneath the Julia Tuttle Causeway Bridge. Currently, there more than 160 municipalities in Florida that impose greater residency restrictions on convicted sex offenders than required by state law.

State law also places restrictions on where certain registered sex offenders may work. In cases where the victim was a minor, sex offenders cannot volunteer or work at any business, school, day care, park, playground or other place where children regularly are present.

Conclusion

Sex offenders are treated uniquely under state and federal law as the only offenders whose punishment does not end once they have completed their court-imposed sentence. For many, the punishments they suffer after finishing their sentences are much harsher than those they received from a judge.

While the state’s interest in monitoring the activities and limiting the contact with children of the most dangerous offenders is understandable, the law also makes it difficult for those who do not pose a risk of reoffending to re-enter society and attempt to re-establish their lives. Florida and other states need to recognize that not everyone who has been labeled as a sex offender poses the same risk to society and treating them all the same is a grave injustice.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sex Offender Registration Does Not Stop Rape

mercurynews.com(Calif): Sex offender Web site didn’t help in Calif. rapes.

San Diego—Authorities say the sex offender charged with killing a San Diego teen initially eluded suspicion in her disappearance because he was registered on California’s sex crimes database as living in a neighboring county.

Investigators in Riverside County say convicted child molester John Albert Gardner III similarly wasn’t a suspect in last year’s disappearance of a 14-year-old girl and an attack on another teen. That’s because at the time Gardner was registered in San Diego County.

Officials said Thursday the discrepancies show how Gardner could apparently comply with California’s offender registry law and still avoid suspicion. Gardner has pleaded not guilty to murdering 17-year-old Chelsea King.

We have said this many times, whenever one of these horrific crimes occurs. Online sex offender registries and residency restrictions do nothing to prevent crime. Think about it. Banning a sex offender from living near a school or park does not prevent him from traveling to that park or school. And posting a sex offender’s photo online does not prevent him from committing a crime !

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

OH: Sheriff Might Drop Sex Offender Tracking

wkyc.com (Cleveland OH): Summit County: Sheriff might drop sex offender tracking.

Akron– Summit County Sheriff Drew Alexander admits that checking the addresses of local registered sex offenders may not continue in the future without new funding and resources for the Sheriff’s Office.

“I don’t know if we can continue to do this,” Alexander said. “We just don’t have the staffing. I’m sure that at the jail, we’re not meeting jail standards. We have some issues coming up there, and there could be some safety issues.”

More than 1,000 registered sex offenders live in Summit County, and state law requires the Sheriff’s Office to monitor and register them for compliance. Until recently, deputies were able to keep up with the workload, with four officers doing field checks at offenders’ homes and three others handling the registration paperwork at the jail.

Economic shortfalls, which resulted in 38 deputies being laid off last fall, have reduced the sex offender tracking team to one deputy for jail paperwork and two patrol deputies — on overtime when available — tracking offenders at home.

“The money’s just not there in our budget (to track sex offenders) and something’s going to have to give.”

The bottom line is that these expanded registration laws (Adam Walsh Act, SORNA) have flooded sex offender registries with so many people that is will eventually become impossible to check up on every one of them. Ohio now has over 30,000 registered sex offenders, while the nation has an estimated 700,000 and growing. It is really just a simple matter of logic. With many sex offenders now subject to lifetime registration, the roles will grow exponentially. And this is not to mention the fact that all this time spent checking residences of all sex offenders takes away time from law enforcement to do other more important tasks.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

AWA/SORNA: Send Your Fax to President Obama

Many readers ask what they can do to help in this fight. Here is something you should do, today. With President Obama making news today in his support of the Adam Walsh Act funding ( see post below), we must do the following before the end of this week, if possible:

ConstitutionalFights spoke to a representative at the White House today who expressed interest in our concerns about the Adam Walsh Act and how it violates constitutional rights of 700,000 Americans. She gave potentially useful instructions on how to communicate effectively to President Obama on this issue.

She said to FAX A ONE PAGE OUTLINE summary sheet to 202-456-2461.
You can email but faxes will be MUCH more effective she said, because they receive millions of emails.

1. At the top of the page, put a clear subject line- re: Adam Walsh Act.

2. List clear concise bullet points, not narrative. She said outline form is much more likely to be read than a narrative story.

Now, I no longer use faxes, but I am sure many of you have access to fax machines. And there are some online alternatives to fax from your computer. So while this may result in a lower number of us sending a fax, if many of us do this, it could be effective (according to the secretary).

You know the bullet points to make: constitutional violations of Ex Post Facto/Retroactivity, Separation of Powers, Breach of Contract, ect, how it damages families and children of offenders, how it imposes life-long registration to many who committed a crime decades ago, ect..

Again, one page, in outline form! To download the sample outline below, download here: http://drop.io/whitehouseSORNA

Sample Outline:

Adam Walsh Act/SORNA : Destroying Families and Failing to Prevent Crime.

AWA/SORNA violates constitutional rights of 700,000 Americans by:

  • imposing retroactive punishment for crimes committed decades ago
  • breach of contract in plea agreements with states by increasing registration requirements, requiring new lifetime registration for many
  • violating separation of powers provisions by disallowing a court review of individual cases


Correcting Myths:

  • U.S. Department of Justice Statistics: Recidivism of Sex Offenders 1994 (latest available): “5.3% of sex offenders were rearrested for another sex crime.”
“An estimated 3.3% of child victimizers 4,300 were rearrested for another sex crime against a child within 3 years of release from prison”

Approximately 60% of boys and 80% of girls who are sexually victimized are abused by someone known to the child or the child’s family (Lieb, Quinsey, and Berliner, 1998).

  • Most-Recent Study Statistics from The National Criminal Justice Reference Service: “results DO NOT indicate an increase in child abductions by strangers”
  • A Comprehensive National Study (University of North Carolina, University of New Hampshire): “The great majority of sexual victimizations were perpetrated by acquaintances”
  • The Crimes Against Children Research Center studies:

a) “various forms of child mistreatment and child victimization declines as much as 40-70% from 1993 through 2004, including sexual abuse, physical abuse, sexual assault…”
b) ” sexual abuse started to decline in the early 1990’s after at least 15 years of steady increases. From 1990 through 2004 sexual abuse substantiations were down 49%”

  • National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System:

a) “Cases of substantiated sexual abuse have declined approximately 39% nationwide from 1992 to 1999. Despite the dramatic nature of the decline, little discussion of the trend has occurred at either the national or the state level. ”

Legal Challenges:

  • AWA/SORNA has been legally challenged in every county in Ohio and within every state. Many State and Federal Courts have ruled retroactive restrictions as unconstitutional.
  • The Indiana Supreme Court ruled retroactive application of SORNA as unconstitutional - Wallace v. State (2009
  • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared in U.S. v. Juvenile Male, No. 07-30290 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2009) that part of the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act is unconstitutional as applied to former juvenile offenders:
  • The Ohio Supreme Court currently has four cases under review to decide retroactive implementation of SORNA.


AWA/SORNA Damages Families:

  • Registries list offenders whose crimes date back decades, and whom have led productive lives since
  • Many of those on the registry were juveniles when the crime was committed
  • Many of those on registry pose little or no threat to re-offend
  • Public registries include home addresses and expose parents and their children to taunting and threats
  • Employment, education and living opportunities are severely limited to families with a registered sex offender
  • Socially stigmatizing Americans for a lifetime creates instability in their lives and actually increases chances of offending


Conclusion: We urge the President to repeal , or completely re-structure The Adam Walsh Act /SORNA to:

  • remove retroactive application
  • allow judicial review of individual cases
  • allow a means to earn a way off the registry
  • maintain registries for law enforcement use only, and not for public perusal


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sex Offender Outrage Reaches White House

ABCNews: Outrage Over Sex Offender Monitoring Reaches White House.

In the wake of John Albert Gardner III being charged today for the killing of Chelsea King, we find that he was already a registered sex offender, which once again shows how ineffective these registries are in preventing crime:

John Walsh, host of “America’s Most Wanted,” said he met with President Obama Wednesday to discuss child protection laws and funding for the Adam Walsh Act, signed three years ago by President Bush.

The law promised to create a national registry of sex offenders and keep closer track of the most violent of them, but it did not come with the funds needed to carry it out.

“President Obama said yesterday, ‘As the father of two girls, John, I will get the Adam Walsh law funded,’” Walsh told “Good Morning America” today.

Walsh, whose 6-year-old son for whom the law is named and who was kidnapped and murdered in 1981, knows firsthand the grief King’s parents are experiencing. ( again let us correct the myth, there was no sexual assault of this boy)
——————————————–
ConstitutionalFights spoke to a live person at the White House who expressed interest in our concerns about the Adam Walsh Act and how it violates constitutional rights of 700,000 Americans. Granted, these secretaries know nothing about the Act, but she gave potentially useful instructions on how to communicate effectively to President Obama on this issue.

She said to FAX A ONE PAGE OUTLINE summary sheet to 202-456-2461.
You can email but faxes will be MUCH more effective she said, because they receive millions of emails.

1. At the top of the page, put a clear subject line- re: Adam Walsh Act.

2. List clear concise bullet points, not narrative. She said outline form is much more likely to be read than a narrative story.

Now, I no longer use faxes, but I am sure many of you have access to fax machines. So while this may result in a lower number of us sending a fax, if many of us do this, it could be effective (according to the secretary).

You know the bullet points to make: constitutional violations of Ex Post Facto/Retroactivity, Separation of Powers, Breach of Contract, ect, how it damages families and children of offenders, how it imposes life-long registration to many who committed a crime decades ago, ect..

Again, one page, in outline form!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,